|
Jenner posted:Can you like, explain this to me more in depth with like lots of explanation and no acronyms as if I were an idiot? (Spoilers I'm an idiot.) Because if it can actually happen I am loving stoked. I just didn't believe we had the numbers and I would like to see them! Even if it's impossible we should still talk about it and try and figure out how to make it happen because poo poo is only gonna get worse.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/216756/us-personal-income/  (residents not citizens so actual numbers probably more favorable)https://www.census.gov/popclock/ so like personal income works out to ~$46k per person. I mean that's 100% confiscatory taxing everything, but like the tax base is there for something like $10k while still having a reasonable tax rate
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:
I've gotta show this to my economist partner because they have been fiddling with numbers all week about this. The only problem I see is it is only 10k and that is not a lot. I survived on 9k a year while on disability but I was also on Section 8, which covered a lot of my rent, and foodstamps. When I calculated in how much I got in necessary support it was about 17k a year (including the 9k a year I got from disability.) So I'm not sure a person could live on 10k a year without assistance but it would still definitely help people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 11:32
|
|
|
It's enough if you live under someone else's room or have a shadow economy gig basically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
wow hillary supporters never learn huh? howard dean to lead us out of this pit? how about keith ellison, who called this result? http://uk.businessinsider.com/keith-ellison-trump-win-2016-11?r=US&IR=T he's already got the backing of warren, sanders, schumer, CWA, and other groups. https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/keith-ellison-dnc https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/11/schumer-throws-his-support-behind-keith-ellison-for-dnc-chairman/ http://www.cwa-union.org/news/releases/cwa-endorses-keith-ellison-for-chair-of-democratic-national-committee Condiv fucked around with this message at 13:09 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 12:56
|
|
|
Venomous posted:lmao @ any optimism that there will be any meaningful change to the DNC when they're going to vote in Howard Dean as chair again and he'll say 'do what we just did for the next four years, but more racist this time' 2006 and 2008 were very, very good years for Democrats electorally, and a lot of the credit for that should go to Howard Dean. Electing Howard Dean as chair of the DNC would be good. Electing Ellison will be very good indeed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
If it's not Keith Ellison, you can give up on the idea that there is any meaningful political opposition to Trump/Pence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Personally I'd like to see Schumer and Pelosi pushed out by more progressive Democrats as well
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Personally I'd like to see Schumer and Pelosi pushed out by more progressive Democrats as well  pelosi is trying to hang on to her job and nopeit's time to clean house. pelosi can work in the mailroom if she wants to stay on with the dems
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:For a start, Howard Dean is up for it but Keith Ellison is probably going to get it. They've already gotten 250k signatures supporting him, Sanders is supporting him, Warren is supporting him, loving Chuck "Mr. Wall Street" Schumer is supporting him. Keith Ellison is the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus and the first Muslim to be elected to Congress. He is also a proponent of and will re-implement the fifty state strategy put in place by Howard Dean (and later dismantled by Tom Kaine and Debbie Wasserman Schultz) which gave us the 2006 and 2008 elections, where not only did we crush it nationally, we gained the majority of governorships and statehouses in 2006 and then expanded on that in 2008. Corbyn was only elected due to grassroots support despite the fact that a lot of his MPs did not (and do not) support him. I fail to see how the DNC will elect Ellison now when pundits are already dismissing him as a city elite in the same way that the media dismissed Corbyn as an out of touch leftist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Venomous posted:Corbyn was only elected due to grassroots support despite the fact that a lot of his MPs did not (and do not) support him. I fail to see how the DNC will elect Ellison now when pundits are already dismissing him as a city elite in the same way that the media dismissed Corbyn as an out of touch leftist. hahahahahahahahahahahaha https://twitter.com/jonathanweisman/status/797120114042793984?ref_src=tw the pundits are loving idiots edit: you're from the uk, so you may not realize, but keith ellison is a populist, and minneapolis is in the rust belt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Venomous posted:Corbyn was only elected due to grassroots support despite the fact that a lot of his MPs did not (and do not) support him. I fail to see how the DNC will elect Ellison now when pundits are already dismissing him as a city elite in the same way that the media dismissed Corbyn as an out of touch leftist. While hope is a lie, I'd still argue that Ellison has a fair shot if things move fast enough due to sheer shock from the election. EDIT: Also the pundit class has done a pretty good job of absolutely discrediting themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Condiv posted:wow It's clips like this that make me chuckle at people who say the media treated Trump to fairly and is part to blame, countless times this happened lmao.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Venomous posted:Corbyn was only elected due to grassroots support despite the fact that a lot of his MPs did not (and do not) support him. I fail to see how the DNC will elect Ellison now when pundits are already dismissing him as a city elite in the same way that the media dismissed Corbyn as an out of touch leftist. I don't know - he's got some big names supporting him. I agree a more democratic process for DNC chair would be preferable. We had something like that in 2004 I think, though I don't know the details. I don't see why you're so dismissive of his chances when, so far as I can tell, he's the one getting all the buzz. I agree about ousting Pelosi and Schumer from leadership positions but I don't think it's going to happen. I'd like to see Elizabeth Warren as minority leader tbh, and Sanders as whip although I guess that wouldn't happen if he's not actually a Democrat. As for House minority leader I like Mark Pocan, Vice chair of the Progressive Caucus in the House and from Wisconsin. This election requires massive changes to leadership. I mean look at this poo poo: quote:Anger and confusion is pulsing through the House Democratic Caucus as lawmakers deal with the fallout from a Donald Trump-led defeat on Election Day that shocked official Washington, both Democrats and Republicans. And multiple members made their feelings evident on the call, trying to account for what went so wrong for Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:gently caress pundits and gently caress the media, first off the "biggest corncob on earth" dynamic will really give dems some leverage with trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
all fair points, just that I thought the DNC chair wasn't democratically elected by the party at large, therefore since the DNC is full of centrist neoliberals I thought they'd go for another continuity neoliberal candidate with a bit more racism involved if that isn't the case, then I apologise, I wasn't trying to say 'pundits are all correct' Venomous fucked around with this message at 15:15 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
Late to the party, but here's my two cents regarding the main topic: I think a lot of the talk about the Dems failing to be the party of the working class misses the point entirely. It's a leftist way of viewing things because it has a simple solution leftist's endorse: move further to the left. This doesn't square with reality much. Trump support is more cultural than it is economic. Even if the Dems were genuinely a working class party, for most working class males (and males in general)--white, black, hispanic, whatever--the Dems social liberalism would be tolerated rather than embraced. That's probably why more blacks, more latinos, and more women supported Trump than they did Obama in 2012, despite the undercurrents of white nativism in his campaign. It's the same reason men and white men in particular have been abandoning the Dems for decades. There's no mystery here. I grew up in Dearborn, MI. I still live in the Metro Detroit area. The people that I've seen who are most vocal in their support for Trump are generally the alpha male types, the types that unironically talk about the "pussification" of America. They're authoritarian--the rules are the rules types. I play hockey with a bunch of union guys as well as some non-union guys who never went to college, and the sentiment is the same among both groups. "Telling it like it is" isn't just "having the balls to say politically incorrect" things, it's saying them with the same aggressive macho attitude Trump has. That's why douchebags like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Rush are popular. White nativism played a huge part in this, too--no doubt. The people I know, who I have grown up around--friends, family, acquaintances, coworkers--are spiteful of those in poverty, because to them poverty is synonymous with black and latino. And poverty is seen as one reason why their once beloved lilly-white communities have gone to poo poo. Trump speaks to these attitudes. They don't give a poo poo about intellectual nuance or liberal sympathies. Illegals are illegal, so build a wall! Terrorism is a threat, so ban muslims! If anything, both those things--nuance and empathy--piss them off more because they feel like they're being asked to tolerate something they shouldn't have to tolerate. Gio fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
This video is pretty much the most spot on one I've seen as to why Trump won. Slightly vulgar, but worth the watch. The dems did it to themselves. https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Gio posted:"Telling it like it is" isn't just "having the balls to say politically incorrect" things, it's saying them with the same aggressive macho attitude Trump has. That's why douchebags like O'Reilly, Hannity, and Rush are popular. There some sort of anti-pcness vote to this election, some think Trumpism is some sort of counter culture rise against pc. I just don't know how you measure it, if I believe the alt right was a big enough influence or where it's going.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Gio posted:Trump support is more cultural than it is economic. Even if the Dems were genuinely a working class party, for most working class males (and males in general)--white, black, hispanic, whatever--the Dems social liberalism would be tolerated rather than embraced. That's probably why more blacks, more latinos, and more women supported Trump than they did Obama in 2012, despite the undercurrents of white nativism in his campaign. What we need is not social liberalism I think. Sanders and some folks in the progressive caucus speak more in terms of economic empowerment than social liberalism. Social liberalism is basically just harnessing the free market to drive the economy, and using the state to reapportion the wealth more equitably. I am fine with this, but the problem with it is that it leaves most people with very little economic leverage at all, and I think this is what people are getting at (crudely) when they talk about the "pussification" of America. You'll have people who are absolutely dependent on the state, the state being beholden to them through their votes and nothing else, and furthermore you're still going to have a 1%er class that owns most of the capital, who will not be beholden to the people at all, and will have vast resources at their command to corrupt the state, and so on. Thing is, you can do that and make it work if you motivate people to keep the state in check with their vote, and regulate the hell out of capital so they keep in line. But that's all done at the ballot box and, well, some (most) people want more direct control of their lives and that's understandable. Hell, it's commendable and we should help them achieve it. I don't think we're going to get this out of the Democratic party anytime soon. The Progressive in the House and Senate do frame the issues this way, sometimes, but it's really going to be a stretch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Gio posted:Late to the party, but here's my two cents regarding the main topic: Trump had appeal across both racism and populism, and in hindsight it's not that surprising that enough people could overlook massive bigotry for the chance to enact real economic change. If you listen to a lot of Trump voters that aren't the die hards that our amazingly in touch media always showed, they believed Trump's promises of massive overhaul to trade policies, money buying off politicians, and business of usual. Of course he's a conman so he will gut this county dry for him and real billionaires, but remember that basically half of our county votes Republican loyally every election. The Republicans haven't had any legislation with positive impact for what like 50+ years? They actively poo poo on the working poor and middle class while boisterously claiming their policies create good jobs, when they objectively don't. Republicans have been the party of racism and bigotry since the Southern Strategy, and we think Trump somehow did extra magic appeal the the super racists? The racist vote is always a Republican stronghold. The cultural divide and appeals are pretty firmly entrenched along party lines and have been for a long time. The president appeals on personality and economic policy. Clinton was fundamentally flawed because there is literally no way for her to push a true progressive or even populist agenda. She's been in the spotlight for 25 years, and excluding the baggage of "scandals", she had been a centrist, corporatist, neoliberal war hawk since joining the Senate. Clinton was a historically unpopular candidate out of the gate. Almost all of this comes from personal dislike of Hillary, not her actual actions or policies. Sure it's mostly bullshit conservative mudslinging but poo poo it worked. So please stop arguing for a return to centrism when that clearly didn't work. People didn't leave the Democrats because they are becoming super SJW, they left for the promise of changing the economy and tossing a Molotov cocktail at the establishment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:There some sort of anti-pcness vote to this election, some think Trumpism is some sort of counter culture rise against pc. I just don't know how you measure it, if I believe the alt right was a big enough influence or where it's going. I mean, this campaign was about zero substance. The only substantive things discussed: a wall, a ban on muslims, and trade deals--all of which favored Trump. I guarantee most voters overlooked the fact that Trump's platform was largely watered-down or Trumped-up Republican garbage. Gio fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:hahahahahahahahahahahaha Yeah, they live in New York or LA, and ever leave. They assume the rest of the country besides Chicago is small rural communities and probably think everywhere is pasty white with no strong black or hispanic presence. Many are the most ignorant people on earth. Gio posted:Late to the party, but here's my two cents regarding the main topic: He won his supporters with racism. But the dems lost because they couldn't convince people to vote for them because those who would have couldn't trust Hillary to give them wwhat she said she would.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Retromancer posted:I love the think pieces about how "the democrats ignored the plight of poor working class whites!" when Trump beat Hillary in every economic demographic except < $50,000. This was middle class white America wanting to be told it was still in charge. he gained something like 16 points among poor voters compared to romney.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
OptimusMatrix posted:This video is pretty much the most spot on one I've seen as to why Trump won. Slightly vulgar, but worth the watch. The dems did it to themselves. I said this in the UKMT but this is complete garbage and a horrible attempt at political satire because it comes off as absolutely sincere and unironic, especially since you're buying it
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Mnoba posted:There some sort of anti-pcness vote to this election, some think Trumpism is some sort of counter culture rise against pc. I just don't know how you measure it, if I believe the alt right was a big enough influence or where it's going. Again, fewer Republicans voted for trump than Romney. This election was decided by 10 million Democratic non-voters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
I kind if don't care about Trump voters because he got fewer votes than Romney. There was no white wave of hate vote, the Democrats lost like 6m people who voted Obama in 2012 when his popularity was down. Clinton and the DNC lost it way more than Trump won it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:wow Yeah, I can't possibly see having the problem with the presumptive front runner for the next election hand picking the DNC chair and stacking the committee with their supporters. Yup, there is absolutely no reason why anyone could possibly have a problem with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
Xae posted:Yeah, I can't possibly see having the problem with the presumptive front runner for the next election hand picking the DNC chair and stacking the committee with their supporters. I don't see the problem. The Clintonites and the DNC careerists need to be purged asap for allowing Trump, Second Worst Candidate Ever, into power. They failed, and it's time for them to go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Xae posted:Yeah, I can't possibly see having the problem with the presumptive front runner for the next election hand picking the DNC chair and stacking the committee with their supporters. how are you people so loving dense?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Again, fewer Republicans voted for trump than Romney. This election was decided by 10 million Democratic non-voters. And Romney spent over 1 billion, Trump didn't so what? You disagree with a rising anti-pc sentiment?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:how are you people so loving dense? How did people go from screaming about how unfair the DNC was because it was hand picked by the opposing candidate to applauding it when their candidate was doing the stacking. Oh right. Hypocrisy is an innate part of human nature. If you support Sanders stacking the DNC you can not ever bitch about Clinton doing the same and maintain a shred of credibility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Xae posted:Yeah, I can't possibly see having the problem with the presumptive front runner for the next election hand picking the DNC chair and stacking the committee with their supporters. How is this stacking it? Its letting all parts of the party based on relative power of voting base have a voice. Rather then you're preference. Third wayers entirely who scream at everyone else to fallow them or else a thousand yers of conservative darkness, and tell them to gently caress off when they ask for scraps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:How is this stacking it? Its letting all parts of the party based on relative power of voting base have a voice. Rather then you're preference. Third wayers entirely who scream at everyone else to fallow them or else a thousand yers of conservative darkness, and tell them to gently caress off when they ask for scraps. So its only bad when other people do it. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
gently caress that loser Clinton. She was the Annointed Superpolitician who was supposed to win all the elections. Toss her and all her biggest supporters in the trash, she was a load of hot air.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Xae posted:So its only bad when other people do it. dear lord. when the other people only have their own and wall street's interests at heart yeah it is. and they just loving lost to the worst nominee running the worst campaign probably ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Xae posted:So its only bad when other people do it. Yeah, everyone getting a voice is not stacking, its the opposite of stacking. I know that thirdwayers prefer lenninist control over the party where its their way or the highway. But now the DNC can be democratic. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Xae posted:Yeah, I can't possibly see having the problem with the presumptive front runner for the next election hand picking the DNC chair and stacking the committee with their supporters. Bernie will be 79 in 2020. He's not going to run again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Xae posted:How did people go from screaming about how unfair the DNC was because it was hand picked by the opposing candidate to applauding it when their candidate was doing the stacking. your side lost to donald trump your side brought us to ruin can your side be trusted with anything?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:your side lost to donald trump And there it is. Anyone pointing out the problems or hypocrisy of the Glorious New Order is an enemy. They are the other side. You're either with us or against us. It took you 5 days to become what you bitched about. That has to be a new record.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
Actually I think you'll find that removing incompetent failures from important positions of power is, in fact, Cool and Good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 17:56
|
|